Colorado's legal cannabis farms emit more carbon than its coal mines

[Ban Hammer 13,345]

38 minutes ago, Neonred said:

 

Time to start growing marijuana at the breweries.

I suppose at the small local microbreweries/pubs that would be one hell of a drink and meal combo.  The double whammy.

or grow it at the chip factories.  cheetos and weed go together well, i hear.........

[TBoneTX 45,304]

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

It isn't food in isolation, but if other nutrients are available, increased CO2 (to a point) causes the rate of photosynthesis to increase, thus greater uptake of nutrients and more light absorption resulting in faster growth. The capacity of individual plants is finite. The benefit with artificial lighting is that you won't need to have the lights on as long (theoretically) although I imagine as it pertains to pot, they are just growing more.

Gracias for shedding light on this topic, see man.

[nykolos 711]

On 3/15/2021 at 3:46 PM, laylalex said:

the vast majority of climate scientists agree (97%) that humans are causing climate change,

Of course, when you have a Government fully funding scientists who agree with their political theory and they cut off funding entirely to Climate scientists who are NOT in agreement, you have a consensus.

 

 

On 3/15/2021 at 3:46 PM, laylalex said:

the increase of carbon emissions since the Industrial Revolution is a very large factor in that.

An unproven "theory", repeated by the media so much that Americans are brainwashed into thinking its true..  If C02 is the culprit to rising temperature, then why in 1945 to the 1970's did temperature decrease while C02 levels increased?  the decrease in temperature was so much that environmental alarmists cautioned that we were headed into another ice age, anyone remember that? But then surface temperature warmed and the same alarmists changed the narrative to "Global Warming", and under Obama, it began to cool again and Obama himself created the term "Climate Change" which is the same Scam, a repackage of Global Warming and given a new name. 

 

When politicians and climate activists say "Follow the Science" they only follow it when it's agreement with their theory,  The Scientific data from ice core samples taken at Vostok and other parts of Antarctica for example have gone ignored, because it tells a much different story, that C02 in FACT lags behind temperature, not the other way around..  And they want us to forget about the Russian Hack many years ago, when the Russians hacked into the IPCC, exposing the Global Warming SCAM for what it is, showing high profile IPCC members acknowledging the cooling trend and working on ways to manipulate it to keep Global Warming alive,  the term "Climate Change" came right after that.

 

Even NASA's James Hansen was caught exaggerating Climate Models, and he admitted it, all in a effort to push his own personal environmental agenda, Hansen is one of the 97% that you refer to.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 2021 by nykolos

[Steeleballz 7,550]

7 hours ago, nykolos said:

The Scientific data from ice core samples taken at Vostok and other parts of Antarctica for example have gone ignored, because it tells a much different story, that C02 in FACT lags behind temperature, not the other way around..  

 

 

  They have actually shown that temperature and CO2 changes correlate very well. It's well know that other factors can cause temperature increase. The fact that temperature has sometimes increased before CO2 does not mean CO2 increase doesn't also drive temperature increase. Historical research has shown both.  For some reason, skeptics tended to focus on the first part.

[Dashinka 24,508]

5 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

  They have actually shown that temperature and CO2 changes correlate very well. It's well know that other factors can cause temperature increase. The fact that temperature has sometimes increased before CO2 does not mean CO2 increase doesn't also drive temperature increase. Historical research has shown both.  For some reason, skeptics tended to focus on the first part.

Depends on the models being followed.  Again, it often goes back to the source of the funding and the political narrative being pushed.  

[Steeleballz 7,550]

9 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

Depends on the models being followed.  Again, it often goes back to the source of the funding and the political narrative being pushed.  

 

  It doesn't. Increased CO2 will always contribute to an increase in temperature, however many other factors also contribute to overall temperature increase or decrease. The greenhouse effect of CO2 isn't always bad. Without it we wouldn't even be here to discuss the political narrative.   

[Dashinka 24,508]

26 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  It doesn't. Increased CO2 will always contribute to an increase in temperature, however many other factors also contribute to overall temperature increase or decrease. The greenhouse effect of CO2 isn't always bad. Without it we wouldn't even be here to discuss the political narrative.   

The models used make many different assumptions regarding the weight of the CO2 factor.  No one knows, or can test the actual overall impact (by itself) of the CO2 increases, and like you said, CO2 is actually plant food, so the Global Warming activists labeling it a pollutant sends the wrong message.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

23 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

The models used make many different assumptions regarding the weight of the CO2 factor.  

 

  They do, but the differences in the various models is not that CO2 contributes to warming, but rather how much it contributes to warming. 

 

26 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

 CO2 is actually plant food, so the Global Warming activists labeling it a pollutant sends the wrong message.

 

  They estimate that plants remove about 45% of the CO2 currently produced by human activity. They also estimate humans have accounted for the loss of about half of the earths forests over time, so the fact that CO2 is contributing to pollution instead of plant foot is also our own doing. Reforestation is actually a fairly low cost method of CO2 removal over time, although it can take years to see returns. 

[Dashinka 24,508]

Just now, Steeleballz said:

 

  They do, but the differences in the various models is not that CO2 contributes to warming, but rather how much it contributes to warming. 

 

 

  They estimate that plants remove about 45% of the CO2 currently produced by human activity. They also estimate humans have accounted for the loss of about half of the earths forests over time, so the fact that CO2 is contributing to pollution instead of plant foot is also our own doing. Reforestation is actually a fairly low cost method of CO2 removal over time, although it can take years to see returns. 

I believe that is what I said, and yes, the models are nothing but hypothetical estimates with no test method.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

12 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I believe that is what I said, and yes, the models are nothing but hypothetical estimates with no test method.

 

  OK, but it wasn't really contrary to my point. CO2 change does correlate with temperature change, regardless of the model used. 

[nykolos 711]

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

 

 

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, nykolos said:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/09/09/empirical-evidence-shows-temperature-increases-before-co2-increase-in-all-records/

 

 

  Milankovitch hypothesized that temperature increases first at the end of ice ages because the earth's orbit takes it closer to the sun. Feedback from increasing CO2 still eventually contributes to temperature change in that scenario, but not before temperature change occurs. Recent advances in ice core analysis using argon and N15 isotopes have shown that either scenario can happen. In other examples, especially things like volcanic events, they have shown CO2 and other greenhouse gasses can be the primary drivers of temperature change. 

 

   BTW, the author you chose is so lacking in credibility that he can't even get sued. 

 

  https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/02/14/judge-dismisses-libel-claim-sceptic-tim-ball-not-credible-enough-take-seriously

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

22 hours ago, Dashinka said:

I believe that is what I said, and yes, the models are nothing but hypothetical estimates with no test method.

So what theory do you subscribe to explain temperature increases, changes in ocean acidity, receding glaciers and sea ice?

[Dashinka 24,508]

3 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

So what theory do you subscribe to explain temperature increases, changes in ocean acidity, receding glaciers and sea ice?

If you think climate change is only due to human activity, then I can understand your question.

[nykolos 711]

11 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

   BTW, the author you chose is so lacking in credibility that he can't even get sued. 

 

The author wasn't the one who analyzed 420,000 years of Ice core data from Vostok, Climate scientists from around the world did that, and they concluded that C02 lags behind temperature.

 

Again, 1945-1970 we experienced a 25 year cooling trend while C02 levels were rising, Fast forward to present and history is repeating itself, global temperatures have been declining for the last 12 years as C02 levels rise, and many scientists predict it will continue to cool into the next decade, this recent cooling period is the primary reason nobody talks about Global Warming anymore, environmentalists and politicians have moved on to the next fraud "Climate Change" 

 

Why change the word? I mean, if were all going to burn, if Greenland is going to melt and sea levels will rise to the point that Florida will be underwater,  (were still waiting for that one to happen Al) why not keep the Global Warming thing going?